Why did Tolkien dislike Disney?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

http://briansibleysblog.blogspot.co....max-results=10

No disrespect to the responses above but the drawings Brian Sibley gives on his blog may be all the answer we need!

Those pictures are hideous! I always judge my Tolkien artists by the quality of their Hobbits, and as soon as they come out looking like the sort of comedy Leprechaun sold in a seaside gift shop, that artist goes down the pan for me. Hobbits are just smaller Men. It's not hard to do them right!

Disney...never liked it. The only thing I could bear for years was The Jungle Book. I have mellowed a bit now and can even permit their version of Winnie the Pooh (having read the original to ye childe, it actually has some slightly distasteful bits, so I am begrudgingly content with a sanitised version), and I love the Pixar films and things like Pirates. But Mickey Mouse etc still leave me utterly cold.

Maybe it wasn't just the artwork that worried Tolkien but the inevitable sanitisation that comes with Disneyfication - not for nothing has that phrase entered the language to describe anything airbrushed to make it more 'cute'.

I should think Tolkien will have seen some Disney films, after all he was raising children in an age before television and many went to the cinema on an almost daily basis, especially during WWII. Children would often spend an entire Saturday in there watching an endless stream of cartoons for a penny or two. Nobody went to 'see a film', you went to see a film, the news, a few cartoons, maybe another film...

But one element not mentioned is that the British have an incredibly strong tradition of comics/animation/illustration all of their own. Disney has always been just one amongst many options in this country. Tolkien's children will have had access to Rupert the Bear and DC Thomson titles such as The Beano and The Dandy, amongst others. Not sure UK based animation was a huge strength back in the mid 20th c but it certainly is now. Disney would have had reasonable cinema success in the UK, but it didn't have much success with comics/books. I think it's likely Tolkien's awareness of their output will have come from cinema visits.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Disney...never liked it. The only thing I could bear for years was The Jungle Book. I have mellowed a bit now and can even permit their version of Winnie the Pooh (having read the original to ye childe, it actually has some slightly distasteful bits, so I am begrudgingly content with a sanitised version), and I love the Pixar films and things like Pirates. But Mickey Mouse etc still leave me utterly cold.

I think there is a profound difference between Disney's silly cartoons like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy, which I could never stand (I'm a Warner Bros. fan all the way -- give me a war of words between Bugs and Daffy or Pepe LePew calling for his love, "Jullio, Jullio, herefore art me, Romiette!"), and Disney's animation from his studio's classic period.

I have purchased (ostensibly for my daughter, mind) the remastered additions of everything from Disney's classic period, and the results are a stunning artistic and technological achievement in animation. It is ridiculous to even compare such artistry to Japanese Anime, which is computer generated and every character looks like a Speed Racer clone. We are talking about artists creating thousands of hand-painted cells, not Pikachu, Dragonball Z or Ghibli drek.

Look at the artwork of Fantasia, Pinocchio or Bambi. The impressionist paintings of Tyrus Wong for the backgrounds in Bambi are breathtaking, and who has not felt a visceral shock when Bambi's mother is shot? Like Tolkien's Sauron in LotR, Disney did not physically reveal his villain, Man, but that makes the evil all the more abhorrent. Likewise, the attack of Monstro the whale and violent actions of the sea in Pinocchio are landmarks in animation. And finally, I still love to watch Mussorgky's "A Night on Bald Mountain" followed by "Ave Maria" in Fantasia. Of course, one can't go wrong with Leopold Stokowski conducting the Philadelphia Orchestra.

I think a few folks here are not giving Disney much credit, and neither did C.S. Lewis, who had a lot of gall to denigrate Disney, what with his inane hodge-podge of mythological miscellany and overt allegory in his Narnia series. One could be just as disdainful of Lewis in that regard. Can anyone say stuffed shirt?

[Mithalwen]

A lot of the classic Disney would have been perhaps a little late for Tolkien's children? Priscilla would have been ten when Snow White came out though I suppose with limited options they might have had a wider audience than the most obvious target market.

I wonder if their roots were just too shallow for Tolkien, to cutesy?

[Bêthberry]

Anyone who cannot appreciate Fantasia must have some kind of ideological blinders. My parents loved it and so did my kids; in fact, it was one of their favourite videos, so there's some cross-generational appreciation. Add me into the mix too.

Fantasia is immune to the criticisms one can make of the later Disney, with its stereotypical princesses, wicked step mothers, and expurgation if not bowlderisation of the terror in the original fairy tales.

I suspect Tolkien had too much respect for real fairy tales to like that dumbing down. Lewis I have no liking for, so I'd best not comment at length on his thought. Remember his silly comment about myth being "lies through silver"? At least it gave us Tolkien's defense of myth in Mythopoeia.

[Mithalwen]

But even Priscilla was 13 in 1940. I didn't see Fantasia other than clips on "Screen Test" until I was grown up and wasn't that bothered. My mother loathed and vetoed cartoons however I know she was taken to see Snow White as a very young child (had a Doc model to prove it- merchandising is not a new thing!!!). I don't know if that put her off...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

But even Priscilla was 13 in 1940. I didn't see Fantasia other than clips on "Screen Test" until I was grown up and wasn't that bothered. My mother loathed and vetoed cartoons however I know she was taken to see Snow White as a very young child (had a Doc model to prove it- merchandising is not a new thing!!!). I don't know if that put her off...

Same here. I never saw Fantasia until I had the Internet at home. Disney classic animation things just aren't shown on UK TV even now. You can get a Sky sub to their channels or buy DVDs (and even then they are only available for a few months before being discontinued), but you just won't see them on BBC or ITV. The only way a child can get 'into' Disney in this country is if their parents make a conscious decision to do so.

I wasn't exactly starved for animation when I was a child. There were endless things to watch that meant I was barely aware of Disney until I was a teenager. Hanna -Barbera's Top Cat; The Flintstones; Whacky Races; and Scooby Doo. European stuff like Barbapapa and Ulysses 31, or action from Battle of the Planets, Godzilla and Spider-Man. And the classic series made by Oliver Postgate and Peter Firmin - Bagpuss, The Clangers, Ivor the Engine and Noggin the Nog - I'd venture to say that if you randomly sampled 100 middle aged Brits to find out which animation they felt a strong sentimental attachment to, anything by Postgate/Firmin would be mentioned by the majority, Disney not so much. And that's because once TV came along, Disney chose not to be part of it here, not even on video cassette, and there was just so much more available (they have certainly caught up since - there can't be a kid alive who hasn't seen Nemo/Toy Story/Cars).

But...I think Tolkien was highly likely to have seen Disney at the cinema though. Priscilla may have been a young teenager but they grew up more slowly back then (and Priscilla was keen on cuddly toys until she grew up), and from what I hear Snow White was enjoyed by all ages. I wonder if there is anything in the Hammond/Scull books or the letters? Maybe his cinema visits were too trivial to be noted?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Did Fantasia even make it to the UK while the war was on?

----------

Tolkien often compares Disney unfavorably to Arthur Rackham, whose somewhat Gothicized realism is a world away from "cute", even when amusing.

http://garybuckley.files.wordpress.c...9/img_0174.jpg
Could we have an Ent here? (Note: the tree is a rowan).

http://truehate.files.wordpress.com/...kham-bears.jpg
These are *not* the 3 Bears as Disney would have done them!

Snow White and her short roommates:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Snow_White.jpg

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And the classic series made by Oliver Postgate and Peter Firmin - Bagpuss, The Clangers, Ivor the Engine and Noggin the Nog - I'd venture to say that if you randomly sampled 100 middle aged Brits to find out which animation they felt a strong sentimental attachment to, anything by Postgate/Firmin would be mentioned by the majority,

Bagpuss was voted the most popular children's programme ever.... love the Firmin Postgate stuff - it was the noise of cartoons proper that irritated my Mum so these missed the cut...and now Ishall have the mouse song as an ear worm all day...

[Coppermirror]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I have purchased (ostensibly for my daughter, mind) the remastered additions of everything from Disney's classic period, and the results are a stunning artistic and technological achievement in animation. It is ridiculous to even compare such artistry to Japanese Anime, which is computer generated and every character looks like a Speed Racer clone. We are talking about artists creating thousands of hand-painted cells, not Pikachu, Dragonball Z or Ghibli drek.

I don't dispute that many of Disney's works are very beautiful, but I do disagree with you strongly about Japanese animation, of which I suspect you have little experience. Japanese animation shifted to mostly using computer animation at about the time Western animation did, and previously it was made with, yes, cell animation. You will find, for example, that Studio Ghibli's Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke films (which personally I consider the most beautiful of their works) were both cell animated. If they are drek and unworthy of being called art, then the same goes for Disney's classic works.

Series such as Pokémon and Dragonball Z are neither known for their art quality nor intended to have outstanding art, and they run for many hundreds of episodes. But there are many series which are known for being beautiful, and of course, animated films almost always have higher production values per amount of time than animated series do. Lumping things like Pokémon and Dragonball Z together with Studio Ghibli films is a bit on the silly side. Some people have the impression that Japanese animation all looks the same, but I suspect that's because most of what they've seen are imported long-running kids' shows, which tend to have more homogenous and lower quality art. Chances are you have not seen the best stuff.

To name a few series/films which have excellent and/or unusual artwork: Hotarubi no Mori e, Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo, Croisée in a Foreign Labyrinth, The Twelve Kingdoms, Mouryou no Hako, House of Five Leaves, Katanagatari, Mushishi, Aria the Animation, Revolutionary Girl Utena the Movie, Mononoke, Kemono no Souja Erin, Le Chevalier D'Eon, Kara no Kyoukai, Tokyo Magnitude 8.0, X, Seirei no Moribito, 5 Centimeters Per Second, Michiko to Hatchin.

I certainly agree with Jallanite above that it's dubious whether Studio Ghibli could properly adapt Tolkien's work. They seem very bad at adapting books faithfully, so I really wouldn't like to see what would happen to the Hobbit or LOTR. I daresay there would be more of an outcry over that than over Peter Jackson's adaptations.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Tolkien often compares Disney unfavorably to Arthur Rackham, whose somewhat Gothicized realism is a world away from "cute", even when amusing.

http://garybuckley.files.wordpress.c...9/img_0174.jpg
Could we have an Ent here? (Note: the tree is a rowan).

http://truehate.files.wordpress.com/...kham-bears.jpg
These are *not* the 3 Bears as Disney would have done them!

Snow White and her short roommates:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Snow_White.jpg

Wow, that art is beautiful! No wonder Tolkien spoke of that work favourably.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Anyone who cannot appreciate Fantasia must have some kind of ideological blinders.

Fantasia is immune to the criticisms one can make of the later Disney

See http://www.brainpickings.org/index.p...-philip-glass/ for an account in which Igor Stravinksy strongly blames Disney for what Disney did to his Rite of Spring in Fantasia. Stravinsky called Disney’s transformation in that film an “unresisting imbecility.”

Again and again I have seen complaints of a work being untrue to the original. There are almost always those who support the original and those who support the adaptation and can’t understand what the fuss is about.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Tolkien's children will have had access to Rupert the Bear and DC Thomson titles such as The Beano and The Dandy, amongst others.

Rupert the Bear first appeared in 1920 and so was probably known to the Tolkien family, but in May 1937 The Dandy and The Beano could not be. The Dandy was first published later that year in December and The Beano was first published the following year. Something in May 1937 or before had made Tolkien think that there was a real danger of American childrens’ book illustrations being influenced by the Disney studios.

Disney films were also not included on North American networks, other than portions of them in some of Disney’s own programs: Disneyland (renamed later) and Micky Mouse Club, and on a few other later Disney programs. Disney, unlike other film production companies, refused to sell any television rights to his older films.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by jallanite

See http://www.brainpickings.org/index.p...-philip-glass/ for an account in which Igor Stravinksy strongly blames Disney for what Disney did to his Rite of Spring in Fantasia. Stravinsky called Disney’s transformation in that film an “unresisting imbecility.”

Again and again I have seen complaints of a work being untrue to the original. There are almost always those who support the original and those who support the adaptation and can’t understand what the fuss is about.

When artists believe they have sole claim to interpretation or meaning, their own artistic ego creates an ideological blinder.


This is a fascinating link. I like the discussion about the nature of creativity. I'm one of the ones who accepts that an artist can make the interpretation he or she sees fit, but that doesn't mean the audience has to have a similar perspective: the comparison of the two become simply another subject of artistic discussion. I also don't necessarily grant that the artist or author has sole authority over interpretation.

In the case of Jackson, I think the problem was exacerbated by his initial claims of how faithful he was to Tolkien. That set up expectations which the films undermined. It is therefore interesting that so far the posters I've seen for TH don't even mention Tolkien.

off topic, but Stravinksy's attitude that "the mass adds nothing to art" strikes me as being the very opposite of Tolkien's attitude towards general readers. Stravinsky is as much a snob as Lewis. His complaint about the "execrable" musical performance also reminds me of the literati's objections to Tolkien's work.

Whether Fantasia's version of Bald Mountain is consistent with Stravinsky's idea is grounds for discussion but that difference doesn't denigrate the creativity of Fantasia, how it inspired audiences. Much as I dislike the films, they have at least brought many, many people into contact with Middle-earth and at least some of those have gone on to appreciate the books. The same can be said of the Harry Potter books, that they hooked children on reading in a way that teachers and schools were unable to.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Whether Fantasia's version of Bald Mountain is consistent with Stravinsky's idea is grounds for discussion but that difference doesn't denigrate the creativity of Fantasia, how it inspired audiences.

Night on Bald Mountain was a tune by Modest Mossorsky and has nothing to do with Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky, save that both were used in different parts of Walt Disney’s Fantasia.

About rights to reuse, that Stravinsky did not sue suggests that Disney had full rights to adapt Rite of Spring as he saw fit. Similarly Jackson had full rights to make any changes in The Lord of the Rings that he wished to. Similarly William Shakespeare had full rights to modify the tales of Hamlet and King Lear into tragedies (though the earlier tales he adapted had happy endings). Similarly Columbia Pictures were fully within their rights in taking a serious minor western tale called Cat Ballou and changing it into an enormously successful comedy film.

Nahum Tate in 1621 modified King Lear to have a happy ending, and dropped the fool from the play, and married Edgar and Cordelia. This was the version presented until 1838 and reduces any changes that Jackson made in The Lord of the Rings to almost nothing. This version appears to have inspired many viewers, including Samuel Johnson.

The film director Akira Kurosawa modified Shakespeare’s original Macbeth and King Lear into his films Throne of Blood and Ran.

In short, that adapters have full rights is generally a given. The question which may be discussed is whether the adaptation was a wise one. I have seen this account of Stravinsky complaining before but not seen any discussion about whether Stravinsky has a point. This tends to suggest that Stravinsky does not, or perhaps rather that people who discuss the film Fantasia tend to be more knowledgeable about animation than about music.

Although see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_Spring :

Among those impressed by the film was Gunther Schuller, later a composer, conductor and jazz scholar. The Rite of Spring sequence, he says, overwhelmed him and determined his future career in music: “I hope [Stravinsky] appreciated that hundreds—perhaps thousands—of musicians were turned onto The Rite of Spring ... through Fantasia, musicians who might otherwise never have heard the work, or at least not until many years later”.

[Morthoron]

For the record, it was Leopold Stokowski who adapted The Rite of Spring for Fantasia, distilling a 40+ minute composition down to the 22:34 minutes needed to fit the parameters of the film. I think Disney dabbled on the piano a bit, but he couldn't really score classical compositions.

In any case, Disney used the adaptation of The Rite of Spring and paid Stravinsky for the privilege, even though Disney was not legally bound to pay him at all. You see, copyrights from Imperial Russia were not recognized by the United States and several other countries; therefore, Stravinsky's 1913 piece was considered in the public domain, "but permission was required for distribution in countries where Stravinsky enjoyed copyright protection":

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...3.96-9205.html

Stravinsky, a man who enjoyed living the high life but who knew full well he couldn't have his champagne and caviar from composing, readily took the money ($6000), and did just about anything else to keep up his celebrity lifestyle, even appearing "in a magazine ad for a record player":

http://www.classical.net/music/books...520256158a.php

Stravinsky did not object to the use of his work in Fantasia at the time of its release, but only many years later, after he was embittered and denied further funding when a planned use of Stravinsky's burlesque opera-ballet Renard by Disney never came to fruition.

So let's not make Stravinsky out to be some kind of musical purist, please. In contrast to Tolkien, who took the money for film rights to The Lord of the Rings but never believed his work could be made into a movie, Stravinsky was completely aware that his composition would be adapted for Fantasia.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"You see, copyrights from Imperial Russia were not recognized by the United States and several other countries; therefore, Stravinsky's 1913 piece was considered in the public domain, "but permission was required for distribution in countries where Stravinsky enjoyed copyright protection""

But surely Le Sacre du Printemps was copyrighted in Switzerland where it was written or France where it was premiered, wasn't it?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

But surely Le Sacre du Printemps was copyrighted in Switzerland where it was written or France where it was premiered, wasn't it?

The Rite of Spring was originally copyright in Germany by Russischer Musik Verlag in 1913. The copyright was transferred to Boosey and Hawkes in 1947.

I have no idea what rules of copyright Stravinsky was allegedly referring to which would possibly put the work into public domain in the U.S. in 1940.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

"You see, copyrights from Imperial Russia were not recognized by the United States and several other countries; therefore, Stravinsky's 1913 piece was considered in the public domain, "but permission was required for distribution in countries where Stravinsky enjoyed copyright protection""

But surely Le Sacre du Printemps was copyrighted in Switzerland where it was written or France where it was premiered, wasn't it?

As far as I know, the copyright was by music publisher Fabien Sevitzky's Russische Musik-Verlag in Russia in 1913. Several sources indicate it was a Russian copyright, but I can't verify it (the composition itself was sketched in St. Petersburg, written in Switzerland and finished somewhere in France on a train ). Here is the front cover of the 1914 4-hand piano reduction of the score written in both French and Russian:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Spring1913.jpg

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Night on Bald Mountain was a tune by Modest Mossorsky and has nothing to do with Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky, save that both were used in different parts of Walt Disney’s Fantasia . . . . Among those impressed by the film was Gunther Schuller, later a composer, conductor and jazz scholar. The Rite of Spring sequence, he says, overwhelmed him and determined his future career in music: “I hope [Stravinsky] appreciated that hundreds—perhaps thousands—of musicians were turned onto The Rite of Spring ... through Fantasia, musicians who might otherwise never have heard the work, or at least not until many years later”.

Note I didn't say Stravinsky wrote NoBM. I referred to it because it has undergone adaptations similar to that Stravinsky was complaining about, but even more so, from Mussorgsky to Rimsky-Korsakov to Leopold Stokowski and so is an even stronger case for the recreativity that Philip Glass and Beck were referring to in your link. It also happens to be the section of Fantasia that had the strongest impact on my children and I began my entry with with its effect on my children, my point being similar to that made by Gunther Schuller about RoS.

[THE Ka]

This topic really caught me by surprise and is an interesting point.

I think another part of the difference is simply how Tolkien intended his work to be read and thought of and how Disney chose to narrate stories.

We are all rather familiar with how Tolkien wished his works to be thought and viewed of more as legend, as accounts of great deeds, trials, etc. that could be seen as happening in a far off age where specifics don't matter as much as messages and eternal themes do. Stories that survive for quite a long time specifically because what they tell and their core values.

Disney pulls a lot of its source material from fairy tales, most of its older works from Grim tales. Which, if anyone's read the original stories you know they are quite different from that of Disney's interpretation. I think what Tolkien might have seen from this is similar to what others have pointed out, the almost excess of humor at the sake of message until all of these tales meld into one.

Before anyone goes on a witch hunt saying that Tolkien does indeed have humor and songs in his work so he is only being a snob of comedy towards Disney, he doesn't do so at the sake of his tales' core themes. There is little difficulty for a child to read The Hobbit and both enjoy the humor and become enamored by the struggle of the characters, or the message.
If anything it's a balancing act of knowing that your work is for children, but like many very old traditional tales (in the way of legends) which usually you would tell a child because of the advice/message they carry.

Maybe looking at how Disney treated Grim's original works, Tolkien felt quite hesitant to hand over or entertain the idea of giving them access to his books.

... Which after seeing those sketches, I'd be saying a firm 'Heck no!' too.

[Galadriel55]

I can't remember if this was brought up before, but what do you think about Disney's happily ever after endings? Would Tolkien have agreed?

I doubt it. A precious few of Tolkien's stories have a truly happy end, and even fewer have a definite end at all. Instead, they all seem to flow on, the end of one story becoming the beginning of another. Would Disney make a movie that has a somewhat sad ending... that's not really an ending? Can't imagine they would really make an effort with the endings here.

All the same, this is a pretty minor point that I just had a random thought about. I think the main issue is, as has been said numerous times already, the over-the-top humour and lack of depth.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I can't remember if this was brought up before, but what do you think about Disney's happily ever after endings? Would Tolkien have agreed?

I doubt it. A precious few of Tolkien's stories have a truly happy end, and even fewer have a definite end at all. Instead, they all seem to flow on, the end of one story becoming the beginning of another. Would Disney make a movie that has a somewhat sad ending... that's not really an ending? Can't imagine they would really make an effort with the endings here.

As originally conceived Bilbo Baggins experienced a storybook "happy ending".

[Bilbo] remained very happy to the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long.

The Hobbit

It was only when writing LOTR that Tolkien had to revise that somewhat, making the Ring a source of discontent and danger for Bilbo.

[Morthoron]

If Tolkien disliked Disney, just think how much he would utterly loathe Peter Jackson.

[Ardent]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I can't remember if this was brought up before, but what do you think about Disney's happily ever after endings? Would Tolkien have agreed?
...

Disney studios were fairly typical for film makers of the time. The happy ending is what people want so that is what is still mass produced. Tolkien's writings contain happy endings too but not sanitised like Disney or Hollywood. 'Closure' in real life is never so neat and tidy as 'ever after', and JRR reflects this.


I wonder what Tolkien had in mind when watching Disney films. If he was hoping for someone with the resources and creativity to adapt his stories I do not believe he'd have seen any film up to the standards needed. Even studios that had the financial resources did not have the directors who could resist the tampering of their backers, while those like Disney and Ray Harryhausen, who might have provided the effects, would have been every bit as disapointing in their handling of mythology.

If Tolkien disliked Disney perhaps it was the result of disappointment.

.

[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I can't remember if this was brought up before, but what do you think about Disney's happily ever after endings? Would Tolkien have agreed?

I doubt it. A precious few of Tolkien's stories have a truly happy end, and even fewer have a definite end at all. Instead, they all seem to flow on, the end of one story becoming the beginning of another.

Even in the dour F.A. there are a few, but the key word is that they are passing. Even Beren and Luthien's legacy intertwine with that of Hurin and Turin's tale, which compared to Disney's clean cut happily ever-afters, is quite the opposite.

Like others have mentioned, Tolkien had a firm grasp of how things like 'closure' are in reality. He repeatedly makes it keenly aware to the reader that yes, some of his characters will find happiness at the end of their tale, but this is far from everlasting. Sometimes one's happiness comes at a consequence to another, whether they know or even care at that point.

Also, the idea that you can't necessarily guard the fallout of anyone's actions upon others is something he visits time and time again. What he does offer is a plethora of responses to this based on the diversity of the nature of his characters. Something we as readers can take away with us and ponder over, or identify with.

Themes like this are about as close to a typical Disney plot anti-thesis as you can get. Even if a main character suffers/looses continuously throughout the narrative, there is always some climatic point where deux ex machina happens for the sake of a clean-cut happy ending that is rewarding to the audience.

Is this good for Disney? Yes, that is what they are known for and what audiences typically expect of them.
For Tolkien? Not very much at all, or at least, not very marketable to Disney (without them making severe changes of course).

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by THE Ka

Is this good for Disney? Yes, that is what they are known for and what audiences typically expect of them.
For Tolkien? Not very much at all, or at least, not very marketable to Disney (without them making severe changes of course).

Makes you wonder (God forbid such a thing ever actually happen...) what a Disney adaptation of Tolkien's tales would look like. Beren and Lúthien is easy enough to imagine: they get married and live happily ever after, and if there's any hint of Lúthien's change of fate, it would be cast as completely romantic--not unlike Tangled--which, as far as THAT goes, would be an adaptation that I would not utterly hate... though I suspect Celegorm and Curufin would turn out to be in cahoots with Morgoth if they made it into the story at all, and Finrod likewise might not die... maybe not Draugluin or Thuringwethil either... and one wonders whether Mandos would appear at all.

Okay, "The Tale of Tinúviel" has problems, but it could be done, probably alone of Tolkien's tales (unless, say, you want to do Tuor's tale, but have it end when he gets the girl--you know, before the action of The Fall of Gondolin really begins). Just trying to IMAGINE a tale of Turin takes all sorts of mental gymnastics. Probably the ONLY thing you could keep from the incestastic ending is killing the dragon--no more dead Turin, dead Brandir, dead Nienor, certainly no Mrs. Nienor Turinswife. That means that Finduilas has to be the princess, so she's not dead, so that probably means no return to Dor-Lómin... and at this point it probably makes sense to either lose Nienor and Morwen completely or distort their story so much as to be unrecognisable. Same with Hurin--perhaps killing the dragon will result in him being freed, so that means the Nirnaeth is starting to look more like Smaug's Destruction of Dale.

I suppose there could be a Dwarf in the story, though....

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just trying to IMAGINE a tale of Turin takes all sorts of mental gymnastics. Probably the ONLY thing you could keep from the incestastic ending is killing the dragon--no more dead Turin, dead Brandir, dead Nienor, certainly no Mrs. Nienor Turinswife. That means that Finduilas has to be the princess, so she's not dead, so that probably means no return to Dor-Lómin... and at this point it probably makes sense to either lose Nienor and Morwen completely or distort their story so much as to be unrecognisable. Same with Hurin--perhaps killing the dragon will result in him being freed, so that means the Nirnaeth is starting to look more like Smaug's Destruction of Dale.

Sssh! Don't give Peter Jackson any ideas.

[Lalwendë]

I'd recoil in horror at the traditional Disney take on a Tolkien story, though an impish part of me would quite like to see what Pixar could do with one of Tolkien's stories...

I think one of the big issues isn't particularly the 'look' of Disney animation, it's about how sanitised it is. The correct word is probably Bowdlerised. But, for the child viewer, much rewriting of stories is often necessary. The original AA Milne text of Winnie the Pooh is quite odd as I found when reading it aloud last year, but the Disney animations are acceptable. Another good example, though not a Disney interpretation is of Thomas the Tank Engine. The original books have some unpleasant stuff in them such as an engine being to all intents and purposes buried alive as punishment for being naughty. And there are numerous stories with serious or casual racism, cruelty, and dodgy values - even Narnia includes some attitudes I would not be happy for a child to take on board. What we deem as children's stories are not always suitable for kids.

The Hobbit itself has an authorial tone that's now quite jarring, though the content is mostly safe enough for school age children. However I feel Disney really would go to town on bowdlerising it. No trolls discussing boiling the Dwarves, or scary Gollum, and no really nasty spiders. Rather than Jackson's take which was to pick up and build on the action in the text, Disney would be more likely to pick up on 'silly' Elves and Dwarves - would the tra-la-la-lally be in there? Oh yes. With Katy Perry singing

Disney's not all bad at all, I can see that some stories do need to be altered for tiny ones to enjoy them. But some stories lose all their appeal when bowdlerised and The Hobbit would be one of them.

Of course, this is all assuming that a Disney adaptation would be animation, when we know they can also produce a cracking live action film (Pirates, anyone?). I wonder if Tolkien ever considered what a live action film might be like.